All logs of KGV, Rodney, Norfolk and Dorsetshire do not mention any direct hits (and the different "Number on Sick List" show no irregularities). All despatches of the four ships say there were no direct hits and no casualties.

However, I've learned in this forum that the Royal Navy is a bunch of forgers and/or liars and/or communicate through weather forecasts/reports. It's of course possible...no...probable that the weather condition reports in the logs contain hidden massages. The temperatures on the differerent ships at 1200 show significant differences for example. Dorsetshire was the only ship that wasn't fired at and it's the only ship with just one temperature while the others mention three. Do you see where the wind blows?...in the truest sense of the word.That means there are only three options left:

1) There were hits and/or many casualties because of the differences in the reports. 2) At least one ship was absent during the final battle. (If so: Norfolk because of Wake-Walker)3) All liars!

Hi all,in addition to Tovey despatches point 88, here what I could find for the 4 British ships involved in the action on May 27 morning, regarding the effects of Bismarck fire (from their official reports) :

KGV

KGV_enemy_fire.jpg (57.36 KiB) Viewed 178 times

Rodney (for Rodney some more detailed info are also available regarding the Bismarck fire and near misses).

Rodney_enemy_fire.jpg (78.13 KiB) Viewed 178 times

Norfolk (point 67) and Dorsetshire (point 40)

Norfolk_Dorsetshire_enemy_fire.jpg (45.39 KiB) Viewed 178 times

Do we have anything more available ?

Bye, Alberto

"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

Since Rodney's log clearly states she was not hit, it is obvious the only reason to state this is because she was. Thoughtful Icon. It is probably the same for all the other ships that say they were not hit.

US citizen Wellings was drafted aboard especially so that he could be coerced into denying any damage that Rodney might suffer, as there were insufficient BBC crews to deploy on all ships to find out secret RN information they were trying to hide. I choose to believe this simply because it is more unlikely than other possibilities.

I had never heard of the chunk of Bismarck shell until there it was in a display case! Of course I wonder what happened to the shell recovered from PoW's innards.

Wadinga wrote: "Since Rodney's log clearly states she was not hit, it is obvious the only reason to state this is because she was"

Hi Sean,I see you (and not only you....) are getting nervous about the already well proven "reliability" of the "official" reports......

My question was fairly posed and I think it deserves an investigation and an answer, but if this is just irritating the "deniers looser side" (I do understand, it must be difficult to accept with dignity the total defeat on almost ALL aspects discussed in the last years on this forum), I can live both without knowing about the Bismarck fire effectiveness on May 27 and without your low "humor".....

Bye, Alberto

"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

I am sure that also in this case they followed Sir W. Churchill directions to Adm Godfrey ( Naval Intelligence Department - NID ) about how to manage the information :

Good news was made to seem better; bad news was toned down, delayed or sometimes suppressed.

Nothing that will surprise me at all ...

Bye Antonio

In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

Statement of Chief Petty Officer Miller, USN.(35)ENEMY ACTIONThe ship received four (4) hits—all 5.9" shells.Damage from these hits were very minor, no structural damage being sustainedwhatsoever.One (1) hit in H.A. Director, causing a small hole in the bulkhead—no damage.One (1) hit in the starboard Marine compartment, causing a 6" hole in the starboardside of the ship—above water line—no damage.One (1) hit in a stateroom just abaft of the conning tower, causing a small hole bysplinter—no damage.One (1) hit in the CPO mess, starboard side, causing a 6" hole, above the waterline—no damage other than to three lockers containing personal clothing.(35)Miller was a passenger in H.M.S. Rodney returning to the United States.Wellings, p.234

And, of course, Miller is wrong on all four counts.

1) a 5.9in hit would probably have killed everyone in the HADT, not made a small hole so this was a splinter hit

2) a 5.9in hit would either penetrate or detonate on contact in either case there would be additional damage, so again this was a splinter hit.

3) this is admitted to be a splinter hit.

4) again this was a splinter hit that probably cut across the lockers, since a 5.9in detonation would cause considerably more damage unless the shell failed to detonate, and in that case there would be mention of it.

I see on Wellings book that Miller was a USN chief petty officer, passenger on board Rodney.

However, how could an experienced sailor attribute to 5,9" shells and not to splinters ALL these damages, describing two of them as 6" holes ? Why are these damages not accounted in the "official reports" ?How could splinters from a shell exploding underwater been projected up to the HA director and to the stateroom abaft the conning (20 to 30 meters high), retaining still enough energy to penetrate the (albeit very light) bulkheads of the ship ?

I agree the "above water" ones may have been splinters or duds (it looks like too many German shells did not explode on May 24 as well), but the HA and the stateroom ones may have passed by the thin bulkhead without exploding within the ship , e.g. the 8" of PG (if it was not a 5,9" from BS) on the support of the HALA directors on PoW, that ricocheted over the roof of the chart house and then passed through quite heavy structures not exploding in the ship).....

Bye, Alberto

"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

I see on Wellings book that Miller was a USN chief petty officer, passenger on board Rodney.

However, how could an experienced sailor attribute to 5,9" shells and not to splinters ALL these damages, describing two of them as 6" holes ? Why are these damages not accounted in the "official reports" ?How could splinters from a shell exploding underwater been projected up to the HA director and to the stateroom abaft the conning (20 to 30 meters high), retaining still enough energy to penetrate the (albeit very light) bulkheads of the ship ?

I agree the "above water" ones may have been splinters or duds (it looks like too many German shells did not explode on May 24 as well), but the HA and the stateroom ones may have passed by the thin bulkhead without exploding within the ship , e.g. the 8" of PG (if it was not a 5,9" from BS) on the support of the HALA directors on PoW, that ricocheted over the roof of the chart house and then passed through quite heavy structures not exploding in the ship).....

Bye, Alberto

We've discussed the splinter damage to Sheffield. If a 5.9in shell struck the HA director and did not detonate it would still leave an entry and exit hole, and sent metal splinters throughout the director, and probably kill everyone in the rather cramped HADT. This was undoubtedly a splinter hit, that had just enough energy to penetrate the ~6mm mild steel side of the HADT. PoW's after starboard HADT suffered a similar splinter hit from the 38cm AP round that burst after striking the crane. Wellings himself explains the real origins of these splinter hits, below.

Bismarck had a limited supply of AP and at some point probably switched to base or nose fuzed. However, even 38cm AP contained nearly 20kg of explosive filler and a shell will often strike the water and then rise before bursting, which will send splinters for hundreds if not thousands of feet. Additionally, at shorter ranges AP shells can strike the water, then be deflected into the air where the shell can burst if the fuze was activated.

The USN was not at war and Miller probably had limited experience in assessing damage. His account doesn't fit with accounts of ~5.9in shell damage to other ships.

There is no reason that Rodney would fail to mention receiving 5.9in hits and/or not mention recovering 5.9in shells. This is what Wellings had to say:

(33)Immediately after the Bismarck sank I inspected the damage from the shell fragments of the Bismarck'ssecond salvo when two 15" shells landed in the water about twenty yards short of the Rodney on our starboardbow. I was certain we were indeed most fortunate to have received so little damage from these two 15"shells . . . . " JHW MS. Reminiscences, p. 233"Enclosure "E" to JHW's Report, serial Fl; x-27 dated 1 July 1941.

The book that contains Wellings reports and diary entries was edited by a 3rd party who included Miller's brief,and incorrect statement.

Hi Duncan,thanks, to me as well the damages look inconsistent with 4 direct hits exploding in the ship.

However, the fact that the holes are exactly 6" ones, that the position of 2 hits is very high over the water (I agree a 15"shell fragment can be projected at very high heights, but almost vertically, unable to penetrate even a thin bulkhead, or at least not leaving a "perfect" 6" hole) makes a bit uncertain that they can all be splinters......

Miller description, albeit mentioning too light damages, is very detailed and precise. He seems to be sure about the "direct hits". Also we cannot discount the fact that many German hits of 15" and 8" on May 24 did not explode at all. Were the HA directors in Rodney similar to the KGV's ones? I mean covered by a canvas and with a bulkhead only on the rear side ?

My initial question arose from the fact that precisely the secondary armament of Bismarck fired quite for a long time (compared to the "problems" of the main armament). At distances progressively down to 3000 / 4000 meters, I find quite unconceivable that not a single 5.9" hit was scored, even accounting for the erratic course of the ship and the state of the sea.

Bye, Alberto

"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

Alberto Virtuani wrote:Hi Duncan,thanks, to me as well the damages look inconsistent with 4 direct hits exploding in the ship.

However, the fact that the holes are exactly 6" ones, that the position of 2 hits is very high over the water (I agree a 15"shell fragment can be projected at very high heights, but almost vertically, unable to penetrate even a thin bulkhead, or at least not leaving a "perfect" 6" hole) makes a bit uncertain that they can all be splinters......

Miller description, albeit mentioning too light damages, is very detailed and precise. He seems to be sure about the "direct hits". Also we cannot discount the fact that many German hits of 15" and 8" on May 24 did not explode at all. Were the HA directors in Rodney similar to the KGV's ones? I mean covered by a canvas and with a bulkhead only on the rear side ?

My initial question arose from the fact that precisely the secondary armament of Bismarck fired quite for a long time (compared to the "problems" of the main armament). At distances progressively down to 3000 / 4000 meters, I find quite unconceivable that not a single 5.9" hit was scored, even accounting for the erratic course of the ship and the state of the sea.

Bye, Alberto

By the time that Rodney closed the range Bismarck's centralized fire control had been knocked out. Given the weather conditions and Bismarck's list (stated by the RN as ~20d) and roll, it is not surprising that she didn't land any hits. Even at DS, when her FC was fully functional there was apparently no 15cm hits. It is quite possible that in the final battle her 15cm turret optics were blinded by spray.

Wellings states that he inspected the 38cm splinter damage: "..Second Bismarck salvo fractured hull above armor plate and atsuperstructure just forward of bridge particularly the forward anti-aircraft control area..." and "...Immediately after the Bismarck sank I inspected the damage from the shell fragments of the Bismarck's second salvo when two 15" shells landed in the water about twenty yards short of the Rodney on our starboard bow..."

The forward antiaircraft area refers to the approximate location of the HADT. All HADTs were similar with thin mild steel sides and open tops that were canvas covered.

Hi Duncan,thanks for the info re. the HADT. Therefore a shell plunging at e.g. 10° can pass above a bulkhead, piercing only one bulkhead at the opposite side and explode outside the ship (or not explode at all) leaving only one hole. Surprisingly, no casualties, as I expected a shell or a splinter (capable to pierce a bulkhead in a quite crowded place like a HADT) to provoke at least some wounded.....

Still we have 6" holes, very compatible with 5,9" shells and the fact that, even in local control, the secondary armament was able to get as close as 50 yards to KGV (see above). I expect some landed close to Rodney as well.....

Also, there is no mention of these damages in the official Rodney report.

Bye, Alberto

"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)